Related Links

The Ley deal

Published: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 at 1:00 a.m.

Last Modified: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 at 9:46 p.m.

Deal or no deal?

That's the simple question facing the Sarasota County commissioners — again — today.

Yesterday, longtime County Administrator Jim Ley provided the commissioners with an uncomplicated proposal for ending a crisis of confidence and making progress toward solving a complicated mess involving county purchasing and procurement practices.

Ley offered to resign, 17 months before the end of his contract, in exchange for a buyout — $265,000 in salary and benefits, plus "entitlements" of about $15,000 in accrued vacation pay and about $24,000 for three years of post-employment health care.

Those are large sums of money.

Yet the total is less than the $385,000, plus "entitlements," to which Ley would receive if he worked the length of his contract — or if the county commissioners terminated him "without cause." (Virtually everyone, including Ley's critics on the commission, agrees that no evidence has surfaced to warrant dismissal "with cause," and therefore without a severance package.)

Loss of political confidence

To his credit, in prepared remarks yesterday, Ley recognized that the circumstances that have led to audits, reviews and investigations of purchasing and procurement have compromised his effectiveness and distracted Sarasota County government.

Despite Ley's accomplishments, the depth and duration of management failures in procurement and purchasing led to an astoundingly rapid loss of political confidence in his ability to fix the problems and move beyond crisis management. As we stated in an editorial last week, and reiterate today, a principled, reasonable separation agreement would benefit the County Commission, the public and Ley.

Four commissioners — Joe Barbetta, Carolyn Mason, Christine Robinson and Jon Thaxton — agreed in principle yesterday that the administrator's resignation would be beneficial. Commission Chairwoman Nora Patterson expressed concerns about paying Ley not to work, arguing that the administration's problems were "fixable," yet conceded that Ley had lost the support of a majority of commissioners.

Yet they could not make a deal yesterday — in large part because Barbetta and Thaxton insisted that a severance agreement include provisions that aren't in the administrator's contract.

Barbetta first proposed a "clawback" provision that would allow the county to seek reimbursement of the buyout if Ley were later found guilty of offenses that would have warranted his firing "with cause." Barbetta then proposed that Ley provide an "affirmation" document stating that he has not committed any crimes as administrator.

Ley rejected the first proposal and asked the commissioners to rethink the second one. But Ley did agree to reconsider the "affirmation" statement before the County Commission reconvenes today.

An unwarranted demand

A "clawback" provision might be justified if it had been included in Ley's contract — or if the commissioners and public had evidence of wrongdoing by the administrator.

The call for Ley to sign a statement affirming that he's done nothing wrong might seem benign. But the demand would essentially require Ley to proclaim his innocence when no evidence has surfaced to indicate he's broken any laws. The demand strikes us as unwarranted and undignified. We don't blame Ley for balking at such provisions after providing the commissioners with a dignified, albeit expensive, exit strategy.

The commissioners have an obligation to protect the interests of taxpayers but, as they repeatedly said yesterday, they also have a duty to ensure public confidence in county government — which, at this point, necessitates a change in administrators and an orderly transition.

Yet the commissioners' unwieldy discussion prevented them from reaching an agreement with Ley or getting around to their frequently stated goal — moving county government forward. After viewing the tensions that were exposed during yesterday's meeting, the answer to today's question should be simple: Deal.

<p>Deal or no deal?</p><p>That's the simple question facing the Sarasota County commissioners — again — today.</p><p>Yesterday, longtime County Administrator Jim Ley provided the commissioners with an uncomplicated proposal for ending a crisis of confidence and making progress toward solving a complicated mess involving county purchasing and procurement practices.</p><p>Ley offered to resign, 17 months before the end of his contract, in exchange for a buyout — $265,000 in salary and benefits, plus "entitlements" of about $15,000 in accrued vacation pay and about $24,000 for three years of post-employment health care.</p><p>Those are large sums of money. </p><p>Yet the total is less than the $385,000, plus "entitlements," to which Ley would receive if he worked the length of his contract — or if the county commissioners terminated him "without cause." (Virtually everyone, including Ley's critics on the commission, agrees that no evidence has surfaced to warrant dismissal "with cause," and therefore without a severance package.)</p><p>Loss of political confidence</p><p>To his credit, in prepared remarks yesterday, Ley recognized that the circumstances that have led to audits, reviews and investigations of purchasing and procurement have compromised his effectiveness and distracted Sarasota County government. </p><p>Despite Ley's accomplishments, the depth and duration of management failures in procurement and purchasing led to an astoundingly rapid loss of political confidence in his ability to fix the problems and move beyond crisis management. As we stated in an editorial last week, and reiterate today, a principled, reasonable separation agreement would benefit the County Commission, the public and Ley.</p><p>Four commissioners — Joe Barbetta, Carolyn Mason, Christine Robinson and Jon Thaxton — agreed in principle yesterday that the administrator's resignation would be beneficial. Commission Chairwoman Nora Patterson expressed concerns about paying Ley not to work, arguing that the administration's problems were "fixable," yet conceded that Ley had lost the support of a majority of commissioners.</p><p>Yet they could not make a deal yesterday — in large part because Barbetta and Thaxton insisted that a severance agreement include provisions that aren't in the administrator's contract.</p><p>Barbetta first proposed a "clawback" provision that would allow the county to seek reimbursement of the buyout if Ley were later found guilty of offenses that would have warranted his firing "with cause." Barbetta then proposed that Ley provide an "affirmation" document stating that he has not committed any crimes as administrator.</p><p>Ley rejected the first proposal and asked the commissioners to rethink the second one. But Ley did agree to reconsider the "affirmation" statement before the County Commission reconvenes today.</p><p>An unwarranted demand</p><p>A "clawback" provision might be justified if it had been included in Ley's contract — or if the commissioners and public had evidence of wrongdoing by the administrator.</p><p>The call for Ley to sign a statement affirming that he's done nothing wrong might seem benign. But the demand would essentially require Ley to proclaim his innocence when no evidence has surfaced to indicate he's broken any laws. The demand strikes us as unwarranted and undignified. We don't blame Ley for balking at such provisions after providing the commissioners with a dignified, albeit expensive, exit strategy.</p><p>The commissioners have an obligation to protect the interests of taxpayers but, as they repeatedly said yesterday, they also have a duty to ensure public confidence in county government — which, at this point, necessitates a change in administrators and an orderly transition.</p><p>Yet the commissioners' unwieldy discussion prevented them from reaching an agreement with Ley or getting around to their frequently stated goal — moving county government forward. After viewing the tensions that were exposed during yesterday's meeting, the answer to today's question should be simple: Deal.</p>